Pay to play

I know, I know. I'm obsessed with Zimbabwe. I can't explain the fixation I have with the country and Mugabe's dicatatorship. And I realize that, by getting my information from American news sources, I may not be considering all sides of the story.

But I also believe that America has a free press and, because of that, I trust the information that I get from it. Zimbabwe's press, however, is not free. And now they are charging exorbinantly high prices for foreign journalists to work in the country. You wouldn't charge people to report if you had nothing to hide.

This, from CNN.com:

HARARE, Zimbabwe (CNN) -- The Zimbabwean government has announced restrictive licensing fees for foreign journalists working in the country, demanding they pay an annual fee of $4,000 to practice journalism.

In addition foreign media groups must pay $10,000 for the application and $20,000 for accreditation, payable only in foreign currency, the government-controlled Media and Information Commission said Wednesday. An administration fee of $2,000 is necessary for the permit.

Zimbabwe has some of the harshest conditions for journalists in the world. Several foreign and local journalists have been arrested in Zimbabwe for lack of accreditation since a media law was passed in 2002.

Most Western media organizations including CNN are banned from Zimbabwe. Those that do still operate there including Reuters, The Associated Press, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Al Jazeera would have to pay the fee if they wanted to report from the country.

Zimbabwean government spokesman George Charamba said the fee was being introduced because foreign media organizations were "reducing local reporters to mere runners."

The new fees do not apply to journalists working for Zimbabwean organizations...

When we visited the Newseum last month, there was this great wall mural that depicted how free the press was in each country of the world. Those countries that had a completely free press were also democracies and developed countries (US, Canada, Western Europe, etc). Those who had somewhat free presses were developing countries without any major world issues going on (Russia, Brazil, etc). Those that had no free press were those countries and geographies riddled with strife (much of Africa, China, Middle East).

I haven't studied this issue so I can't say there is a causation. But the correlation seems pretty clear. That speaks volumes for the power of the pen, the power of free thought and dissent, and the power of knowledge.

I voted!

I hope everything has had a chance today to go out and vote. Fortunately, the there was no line at my polling place; I walked in and walked out.

I'm not particularly a big Carrie Underwood fan (country music isn't quite my thing), but I did love this quote from her in TV Guide. I've ranted about the media doing this before, but I also feel the same way about celebrities. In my opinion, celebrities aren't qualified to tell American voters how to vote and I think it's a little arrogant of them to think that their opinion should matter to the average American. Get over yourselves.

Carrie put it a bit more eloquently:

There is someone I do support, but I don't support publicly. I lose all respect for celebrities when they back a candidate. It's saying that the American public isn't smart enough to make their own decisions.

So today, don't listen to the media. Don't listen to well-paid celebrities. Don't listen to your friends or family. Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself and what you think is best for this country. And vote.

The collective media - a soapbox rant

Can I just step on my soapbox for a moment?

Let me preface this rant by saying that I don't like to be told what to do. Ever. Just ask my parents.

I am sick and tired of the collective media making the election decision for the American public. Obama is on the cover of Time Magazine this week, with the caption "And the Winner is...". Fortune's cover has a picture of Obama with a headline about the two candidate's positions on the economy (where's the picture of the second candidate?). CNN seems to only report positive stories about Obama and negative storis about McCain. What happened to telling both sides of the story and letting the people make the decision?

Answer: the media is tired of Republicans in office and have decided not to trust Americans to make the decision at the ballot box again. After all, the American public had been given a second chance and blew it, electing GW into office a second time.

But that shouldn't matter. How is what the media doing any different than when developing countries/dictatorships stuff the ballot box? Or intimidate people when they go vote? Or just having a dictator make the decision himself, without the hassle of an election?

News Flash: we haven't had one debate yet between the candidates nor do we really, truly know what these candidates stand for. All of it is rhetoric at this point, on both sides. How can the winner already be determined if we don't even know where they stand on the issues?

I'm not suggesting that we should swing the other way and glorify McCain. But I am suggesting that we give the relevant information to Americans and let them vote based on the facts and figures. It makes me so angry - physically angry - that the media is essentially making the decision for us. Yeah, our freedom gives the media the right to say whatever they want. But now they are just being irresponsible and a bully.

It's almost enough to vote a certain way, just out of spite.